R. v. Pooran (S.), (2011) 511 A.R. 226 (PC)

• Judge: Brown, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 15, 2009
• Citations: (2011), 511 A.R. 226 (PC);2011 ABPC 77

R. v. Pooran (S.) (2011), 511 A.R. 226 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. MR.194

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown/respondent) v. Sonia Pooran (applicant)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown/respondent) v. Guy Vaillant (applicant)

(A61090746C; 2011 ABPC 77)

Indexed As: R. v. Pooran (S.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Brown, P.C.J.

March 4, 2011.

Summary:

Pooran brought an application, joined in by Vaillant, for Traffic Safety Act trials in French. The application called for an interpretation of s. 4 of the Alberta Languages Act.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that Pooran and Vaillant were entitled to have their Traffic Safety Act trials in French, i.e., they were entitled to communicate in French and have the trials prosecuted by a French-speaking prosecutor and heard by a French-speaking judge.

Civil Rights - Topic 2702

Language - General principles - Use of language in court proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2703 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 2703

Language - General principles - Interpretation of language rights legislation - Pooran brought an application, joined in by Vaillant, for Traffic Safety Act trials in French - Section 4 of the Alberta Languages Act provided that "(1) Any person may use English or French in oral communication in proceedings before the following courts: ... The Provincial Court of Alberta; (2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations for the purpose of carrying this section into effect, or for any matters not fully or sufficiently provided for in this section or in the rules of those courts already in force" - The Crown argued that a French-speaking litigant's language rights according to the Languages Act entitled him or her to provision of an interpreter but not to a French trial - The Alberta Provincial Court held that Pooran and Vaillant were entitled to have their Traffic Safety Act trials in French, i.e., they were entitled to communicate in French and have the trials prosecuted by a French-speaking prosecutor and heard by a French-speaking judge - The court stated that language rights were to be given a liberal and purposive interpretation; language rights were distinct from legal rights; Alberta recognized the unique rights of Francophones; the languages of the courts in Alberta were English and French; and the language rights enunciated in s. 4 of the Languages Act were not eroded by the failure of the provincial government to enact regulations to hone their delivery.

Civil Rights - Topic 2726

Language - Court proceedings and processes - Prosecution under federal or provincial statute - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2703 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7730

Language rights - Provincial legislation - Provincial statute re language rights in criminal matters in provincial courts - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2703 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Caron (G.) (2009), 476 A.R. 198 (Q.B.), reving. (2008), 450 A.R. 204 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Desrochers et al. v. Industry Canada et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 194; 384 N.R. 50, refd. to. [para. 5].

Northwest Territories (Attorney General) et al. v. Fédération Franco-Ténoise et al. (2008), 440 A.R. 56; 438 W.A.C. 56 (N.W.T.C.A.), reving. in part [2006] N.W.T.J. No. 32 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Fédération Franco-Ténoise v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Northwest Territories (Attorney General) et al. v. Fédération Franco-Ténoise et al.

Caron v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al. (2007), 426 A.R. 378 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Solski v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 201; 331 N.R. 256, refd to. [para. 5].

Lalonde et al. v. Commission de restructuration des services de santé (Ont.) (2002), 153 O.A.C. 1; 56 O.R.(3d) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Arsenault-Cameron et al. v. Prince Edward Island, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 3; 249 N.R. 140; 184 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 44; 599 A.P.R. 44, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Beaulac (J.V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768; 238 N.R. 131; 121 B.C.A.C. 227; 198 W.A.C. 227, refd to. [para. 5].

Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. and Association de conseillers scolaires francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick v. Minority Language School Board No. 50 and Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 177 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 5].

Montréal (City) v. MacDonald, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 460; 67 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Languages Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-6, sect. 4(1)(d), sect. 4(2) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates (June 22, 1988), generally [para. 5].

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates (June 23, 1988), generally [para. 5].

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates (June 28, 1988), generally [para. 5].

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates (June 29, 1988), generally [para. 5].

Alberta,    Hansard,    Legislative    Assembly

Debates (June 30, 1988), generally [para. 5].

Bastarache, Michel, Language Rights in Canada (2nd Ed. 2004), generally [para. 5].

Hansard (Alta.) - see Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed. 2007), vol. 2 [para. 5].

Counsel:

B. Kristensen, for the Crown/respondent;

G. Lévesque, for the applicant, Pooran;

G. Vaillant, the applicant, for himself.

This application was heard on October 15, 2009, March 29 and 30 and June 24, 2010, before Brown, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on March 4, 2011.